Asdf: Update functionality

[Quintasan]

While fixing code-lever/asdf-rust#2 is relatively simple I can't help but notice we could use asdf update functionality to allow users to keep their nightlies up-to-date. Any ideas on how to implement this?

[vic]

Hm, so if I'm understanding it well, is this a proposal to have asdf update rust <version> that would just uninstall and install again that specific rust version? How about naming it reinstall? How others feel about this, do you think there is any real advantage of having a command like this?

[Quintasan]

@vic Some Rust projects require nightly Rust toolchain. Due to its nature it will be getting out of date rather frequently so a way of keeping it up-to-date is desirable. Not that requiring unstable versions of toolchain is a Rust-only thing.

As for naming it reinstall. I'm not going to be adamant about it or anything but for me reinstall means "uninstall X.Y.Z and install X.Y.Z back". I can imagine you realise it won't work that way with nightly since what works today might be broken beyond recognition in tomorrow's nightly. Update on the other hand has the meaning of "take my version X.Y.Z and replace it with the newer one" which fits better IMO.

Anyway - the call is yours and you won't see me complaining either way.

[ShaneKilkelly]

take my version X.Y.Z and replace it with the newer one

I suspect the issue with the update name is that updating from version 1.2.3 to version 1.2.3 is nonsensical, and only makes sense in the context of a nightly version.

Perhaps the install command should take a --force flag, which would force re-installation (or whatever you want to call it) of the version.

So in the case of Rust it would be something like asdf install rust nightly --force.

[danhper]

I agree a --force flag to install would make sense.
I sometime recompile the same version of a language (for example when I forgot an optional dependency) and such a flag would help even though it is exactly the same version I am installing.

[Stratus3D]

I'm closing this issue in favor of #244. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed here please reopen this issue.